Henry of Segusio

Henry of Segusio, usually called Hostiensis, (c. 1200 – November 6 or 7, 1271)[1] was an Italian canonist of the thirteenth century, born at Susa (Segusio), in the ancient Diocese of Turin. He died at Lyon.

Life

He gave himself up to the study of Roman law and canon law at Bologna, where he seems to have taught, and to have taken his degree utriusque juris. He taught canon law at Paris, and spent some time in England, whence King Henry III sent him on a mission to Innocent IV.

Later he became Provost of Antibes, and chaplain to the pope and was soon promoted to the See of Sisteron (1244), afterwards to the Archdiocese of Embrun (1250). He became Cardinal Bishop of Ostia and Velletri on May 22, 1262,[2] whence his name Hostiensis. His health forced him to leave the conclave which, after the Holy See had been vacant for three years, elected Gregory X.

Works

As a canonist Hostiensis had a great reputation. His works are:

A work on feudal law has also been attributed to him, but without foundation.

Hostiensis on Papal Plenitudo Potestatis (Fullness of Power)

For Hostiensis the law as well as all political authority were derived from God.[3] Because of this all princes “exercised authority by divine mandate.”[3] Civil law was divine because the emperors who created that law were placed in authority by God.[4] Despite this, however, civil law was inferior to canon law.[5]

The reason for this is that the pope’s authority was even closer to the divine than that of secular princes. Because the pope was the vicar of God he acted on God’s authority, from which he (the pope) derived his own authority.[3] Thus, whenever the pope acted de iure he acted as God.[3] Therefore canon law, since it was promulgated by the pope, was established by God.[6] This is because canon law was based on the bible, and God had given his vicar, the pope, the authority to interpret that text.[6] Thus canon law was divine not because it came directly from God, but because of the end it sought (the spiritual well-being of Christians) and because of the dignity of the Pope, from which the canon law emanated.[7]

Hostiensis believed that while the pope should follow positive law he was not bound by it.[8] Thus the pope could not be tried for any crime, except that of heresy, in which case “the pope could be subject to the 'ecclesia' (the Church)."[8] For any other violation of law the pope could be judged by no one save God.[8] Further, except in the event that a mortal sin would result, the pope was to be obeyed in everything he commanded, including violations of positive law, since the pope was above that law.[9] The only exception to this was if the pope’s command violated the conscience of the one being commanded, in which case the one being commanded should not obey.[9]

Similarly, Hostiensis believed that the pope could grant exemptions even from divine law ("mandates of the Apostles and rules of the Old Testament"),[9] so long as that exemption did not lead to a mortal sin, violate the faith, subvert the faith, or endanger the salvation of souls.[10] The pope had great authority indeed, he could even "change squares into circles.[11]

According to Hostiensis the pope was imbued with the authority of the two swords (Lk 22:36-38), interpreted as spiritual and temporal power.[12] The spiritual was superior to the temporal in the following three aspects: “in dignity, for the spirit is greater and more honourable than the body; in time, for it was earlier; and in power, for it not only institutes the temporal power but also has the authority to judge it, while the Pope cannot be judged by any man, except in cases of heresy.”[13] The pope entrusted temporal authority to the emperors[14] but retained the right to reclaim that authority “in virtue of the ‘plenitudo potestatis’ which he possesses as the vicar of Christ.”[15] Indeed, the temporal power of the pope was so complete that Hostiensis considered it a mortal sin for a temporal ruler to disobey the pope in temporal matters.[16]

This view of papal authority in temporal matters also applied to the kingdoms of non-Christians. For Hostiensis all sovereignty had been taken away from non-Christians and transferred to the faithful when Christ came into the world.[17] “This translation of power was first made to the person of Christ [w]ho combined the functions of priesthood and kingship, and this sacerdotal and kingly power was then transferred to the popes.”[18] Non-Christians were thus subject to Christians but could maintain sovereignty over their lands so long as they recognized the church as superior.[18] If non-believers failed to recognize the lordship of the Church, however, sovereignty could be taken away from them by the pope and transferred to Christian rulers.

Hostiensis’ influence lasted well into the seventeenth century.[19] His thought played an especially central role in Spanish theories of empire during the age of discovery. Both Juan Lopez de Palacios Rubios and Fray Matias de Paz, who were recruited by King Ferdinand of Spain in 1512 to help legitimate Spanish title over the New World,[20] based their justifications of Spanish sovereignty over the New World on Hostiensis’ ideas on papal temporal sovereignty.[21]

In literature

He is mentioned in the Paradise (12.82-85) of Dante's Divine Comedy.

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Kenneth Pennington, Popes, Canonists and Texts, 1150-1550. Brookfield, VT: Variorum (1993), pp. XVI.1, XVI.5.
  2. ↑ Consistory of 1262
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Pennington, Kenneth (1993b). The Prince and the Law, 1200–1600. Los Angeles: University of California Press. p. 51. ISBN 0520913035.
  4. ↑ Arturo Rivera Damas, Pensamiento Politico de Hostiensis: Estudio Juridico-Historico Sobre las Relaciones Entre el Sacerdocio y el Imperio en los Escritos de Enrique de Susa. Zurich (1964), p. 142.
  5. ↑ Damas (1964), p. 55.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Pennington (1993b), p. 53.
  7. ↑ Rivera Damas, supra f.n. 4, at 42
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Pennington, supra f.n. 3, at 59.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Pennington, supra f.n. 3, at 60.
  10. ↑ Pennington, supra f.n. 3, at 60–61.
  11. ↑ "Pennington, supra f.n. 3, at 61.
  12. ↑ R.W. & A.J. Carlyle, A History of Medieval Political Theory in the West: Vol. 5, The Political Theory of the Thirteenth Century. London: William Blackwood & Sons LTD (1928), p. 331
  13. ↑ Carlyle at 229
  14. ↑ Carlyle at 331
  15. ↑ Carlyle at 332
  16. ↑ Walter Ullmann, Medieval Papalism: The Political Theories of the Medieval Canonists. London: Methuen & Co. LTD (1949), p. 93.
  17. ↑ Rivera Damas, supra f.n. 4, at 144-146.
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 Ullmann, supra f.n. 16, at 131.
  19. ↑ Pennington, supra f.n. 3, at 49.
  20. ↑ Seed, Patricia (1992). "Taking Possession and Reading Texts: Establishing the Authority of Overseas Empires". The William and Mary Quarterly 49 (2): 183–209 [p. 202]. JSTOR 2947269.
  21. ↑ J.H. Parry, The Spanish Theory of Empire in the Sixteenth Century. London: Cambridge University Press (1940), pp. 12–13.

References

External links

Catholic Church titles
Preceded by
Hugh of St Cher		 Cardinal-bishop of Ostia
1262–1271 		Succeeded by
Peter of Tarentaise
Preceded by
Humbert		 Bishop of Embrun
1250–1261 		Succeeded by
Melchior
Preceded by
Rodolphe II		 Bishop of Sisteron
1244–1250 		Succeeded by
Humbert Fallavel

 This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). Catholic Encyclopedia. Robert Appleton Company.